[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 102 (Monday, July 11, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H4834-H4849]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chair, I was unavoidably absent for votes in the 
House Chamber today. I would like the Record to show that, had I been 
present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 534 and ``no'' on 
rollcall votes 535, 536, 537, and 538.


                 Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Lamborn

  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 23, line 4, strike ``expended:'' and all that follows 
     through ``6864(a)).'', and insert ``expended.''

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, my constituents in Colorado, like all 
Americans, are demanding that Congress cut spending. We must look for 
every opportunity, large and small, to cut wasteful government 
programs. This amendment does just that.
  The Weatherization Assistance Program, otherwise known as ``Cash for 
Caulkers,'' and part of the failed stimulus package, has been plagued 
by bureaucratic mismanagement. This $5 billion program was supposed to 
create jobs, but we all know that didn't work out so well. In fact, 
with unemployment ticking up for 2 months in a row, we must reverse 
course and cut all unspent stimulus dollars.
  In the stimulus, $5 billion was injected into ``Cash for Caulkers'' 
through the Department of Energy in an attempt to help lower the cost 
of energy and increase efficiency for people who qualified. The goal 
was to make 593,000 homes more energy efficient by March 2012.
  This program, however, has been marked by mismanagement, fraud, 
waste, and abuse. Most notably is the case of Delaware, where Federal 
auditors found mismanagement issues and potential fraudulent 
activities. Reportedly, subsequent repairs and other inspections will 
cost the State a sizable amount of their remaining funds. Issues have 
arisen in other States as well.
  When large sums of money are spent too quickly, the opportunities for 
waste and abuse are rampant. The Obama administration, in its haste to 
create government jobs, failed to thoughtfully and prudently assess how 
money was spent. In these tough fiscal times, we must have 
accountability for every dollar spent by the Federal Government.

                              {time}  1920

  States have until March of 2012 to use Cash for Clunkers funds or 
risk having them returned to the Treasury. I am concerned that this 
could leave a large slush fund of $1.5 billion in the hands of federal 
bureaucrats. They could spend that money with very little Congressional 
oversight.
  My amendment is simple. It will prevent the Secretary of Energy from 
reallocating funds remaining from the American Recovery and 
Reinvestment Act from one State to another. This will leave up to $1.5 
billion that can be returned to the Treasury next March, thus reducing 
our massive deficit.
  I urge support for this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, this amendment strikes language in the 
bill that allows the Secretary of Energy to redirect unspent stimulus 
funds from one State to another. What they're really saying is this: 
$1.5 billion is going to be taken from the States that decided not to 
use the money and give it to States that not only have spent their 
allocations but want to

[[Page H4835]]

spend even more. If Aesop were writing this tale, I think it would 
include an ant and a grasshopper.
  The principle stinks, and so does the program. These funds are 
ostensibly to finance weatherization and building design programs to 
increase energy efficiency. But the potential savings--if anywhere near 
as great as the administration claims--should be more than enough 
motivation for individuals to pursue this activity on their own without 
a government giveaway. After all, why should taxpayers pay to develop 
and subsidize building materials and technologies to be sold in the 
private sector to private consumers?
  In all matters of energy and energy conservation, we've got to get 
back to the simple doctrine that the beneficiary should pay. If a 
product saves consumers money--in this case through energy savings--
that's a benefit, and it is incorporated into the price structure of 
that product. This elegant and simple process allows consumers to 
decide for themselves if the added energy savings are worth the added 
financial cost. If the answer is yes, the world will beat a path to the 
door of those who manufacture and sell those products. And if the 
answer is no, taxpayers shouldn't be subsidizing it.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I rise to oppose the amendment.
  The weatherization program was provided $5 billion by the stimulus 
bill in 2009. But the program has been slow to act, and approximately 
$1.4 billion will be unspent and available for use in fiscal year 2012.
  Some States have spent all of their stimulus money, while others will 
have plenty left for fiscal year 2012. But the Department of Energy, by 
law, must spread any new funding evenly across all States.
  The bill cuts this program by $141 million below the President's 
request. The language in the underlying bill gives the Secretary of 
Energy the flexibility to use limited appropriations provided in fiscal 
year 2012 to supplement States that have no stimulus funding. The bill 
does not allow--I would like to add that emphasis--the bill does not 
allow the Secretary to reallocate stimulus funds. All it does is allow 
the Secretary some flexibility in where he allocates it. There is $33 
million left in the bill.
  Let me say, we can't afford, in the Department of Energy, with this 
program, or any other program, to have business as usual in terms of 
weatherizations. And I would agree with the gentleman from Colorado 
that in many cases, the money hasn't been spent, and in some cases 
there have been questions as to how well it's been spent.
  This waiver in our bill provides a solution allowing all States to 
continue this program under a tight federal budget and with direct 
oversight of our committee. The amendment that is suggested by the 
gentleman from Colorado would undo the solution by striking language 
providing this flexibility, causing job losses and program stoppages in 
many States where, in fact, in those States, these funds are obligated.
  So, therefore, I oppose the amendment and urge other Members to do so 
as well.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word and rise 
in opposition to the amendment as well.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I would point out to my colleagues that while the 
pending legislation is $141 million below fiscal year 2011 levels, the 
fact is we do have approximately $1.5 billion that essentially has been 
forwarded to the States. And the chairman just mentioned the issue of 
jobs. Those moneys are available as they are allocated and distributed 
for weatherization programs to put people to work. We have had 
complaints in this Chamber over the last week about the last 
unemployment report.
  These moneys have already been budgeted. These moneys have been 
obligated to the States, and these moneys can put people to work doing 
useful things such as helping those who need to weatherize their house 
and reduce their utility bills so they can have enough money to buy 
gasoline and put it in their cars, as well as to begin to reduce the 
use of energy in this country. These are very necessary moneys to 
create jobs, to help those in need, and to reduce our energy 
dependence. I strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado 
will be postponed.


             Amendment Offered by Mr. Connolly of Virginia

  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 23, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $46,000,000)''.
       Page 24, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $99,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, the fiscal year 2012 Energy 
and Water Appropriations Act is an assault on any rational, scientific 
basis for public policy. It would decimate American manufacturing, 
impoverish American consumers, and allow polluters to sully our water 
with impunity. At a time when the American economy is stuck in neutral, 
while China and Germany are accelerating their production of clean 
energy and advanced vehicles, this bill would take America back to the 
19th century standards of unbridled industrial predation without public 
oversight or regulation.
  Mr. Peters of Michigan and I drafted a simple amendment to fix one, 
among many, problems in this bill. Mr. Peters has been a leader of 
efforts to restore our auto industry, and I appreciate his 
cosponsorship of this amendment. It would simply restore some of the 
funding cut from the Vehicle Technologies program with a funding offset 
providing by eliminating an increase in corporate welfare for the 
fossil fuel industry. This amendment would maintain the same level of 
funding as was provided in this fiscal year's Energy and Water 
appropriations bill.
  The Vehicle Technologies program is a critical part of our efforts to 
revive American manufacturing and the automobile industry. It is a job 
generator. Five years ago, our auto industry was on its deathbed, with 
two major manufacturers facing bankruptcy. Fortunately, President Obama 
intervened and provided temporary assistance both to General Motors and 
Chrysler, most of which has already been repaid. Today, these domestic 
manufacturers are growing again, with positive domestic economic 
benefits for auto dealers and parts suppliers all across America. 
Unfortunately, this Energy and Water appropriations bill would reverse 
this progress by gutting important vehicle research funding.
  The Vehicle Technologies program is a success story in boosting 
domestic manufacturing of cleaner cars that save consumers money at the 
pump. It is reducing the cost of advanced lithium ion batteries, which 
are in all hybrid vehicles on the road in America. This program has 
helped deploy 48 battery manufacturing projects all across the United 
States with the goal of reducing hybrid vehicle engine costs by 35 
percent. Hybrid vehicles are an important part of our domestic 
manufacturing base and provide direct quality of life benefits in 
suburban regions with high levels of smog pollution, such as here in 
the Nation's capital. The Advanced Vehicle Technologies program also is 
helping to deploy electric vehicles, including the new Chevy Volt.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, this program has accelerated deployment of 
hybrid-electric diesel buses, improving transit service and air quality 
in communities throughout the country like my own in Fairfax County, 
Virginia.

[[Page H4836]]

                              {time}  1930

  We cannot allow a hemorrhaging of technology and manufacturing jobs 
to foreign competition while unemployment grows in America. The 
Republicans seem to believe that corporate welfare for oil companies 
will help the economy, but we tried that during the previous 
administration and it did not work. We need to focus on rebuilding the 
technologies of the future right here in America, and the Vehicle 
Technologies Program is a part of that effort.
  I ask for favorable consideration of this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. The gentleman from Virginia's amendment would 
increase funding for the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy and 
reduce funding for Fossil Energy Research and Development. This would 
result in an increase in a program that already receives sufficient 
funds and hamper efforts to further technologies that produce most of 
our electricity.
  Let's be frank. Fossil fuels, such as coal and natural gas, generate 
70 percent of our Nation's electricity, and we will use these valuable 
energy sources for many generations.
  We must ensure that we use those resources, of course, as efficiently 
and cleanly as possible. Further, the amendment increases funding for 
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, a program that has seen record 
increases since 2007, and still has nearly, if you can believe it, $9 
billion of unspent stimulus funds from 2009.
  There is a proper role for the core Energy Efficiency and Renewable 
programs, and the bill preserves funding for those activities while 
cutting out activities that are redundant with the private sector or 
that intervene improperly in market innovation.
  The amendment would also add back unnecessary funding for 
administration proposals that are poorly planned and lack 
justification. That in and of itself is bad enough, and I oppose the 
amendment and urge others to do so as well.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PETERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. PETERS. I rise to support the Connolly-Peters amendment because 
times of fiscal restraint force us to prioritize. However, I am 
disappointed that the Republican bill prioritizes the needs of 
extremely profitable private companies over the manufacturing and 
innovative jobs of the future.
  ExxonMobil Corp. earned nearly $11 billion in the first 3 months of 
the year, Shell earned $6.3 billion in the first quarter, and BP made 
$7.1 billion. Yet the Republican bill includes $476 million for fossil 
energy R&D. Clearly, the private sector has the initiative and the 
resources to conduct this research on their own, and they are doing so. 
Private sector R&D currently dwarfs activities at the Department of 
Energy, yet this program is actually seeing an increase in funds.
  This amendment strikes a better balance by decreasing funding in the 
fossil energy account and restoring the Vehicle Technologies Program to 
fiscal year 2011 levels. The Vehicle Technologies Program supports 
private sector growth and the development of innovative technologies to 
meet mileage and emission standards for both cars and trucks.
  Consider how much fuel is used in the transport of consumer goods 
across our Nation on medium and heavy-duty trucks. Small gains in 
efficiency can have huge gains in fuel and cost savings. The Vehicle 
Technologies Program is investing heavily in new truck technologies, 
which have some of the greatest potential to reduce our Nation's 
petroleum use and dependence on foreign oil.
  There is a global competition right now to determine which countries 
will produce the cars and trucks of the future. There is no doubt in 
the years ahead more Americans will be driving hybrids, plug-in 
hybrids, battery electric vehicles, and cars and trucks powered by 
hydrogen fuel cells or natural gas. The only question is whether these 
new technologies will be researched, developed, and manufactured here 
in the United States or overseas.
  The Vehicle Technologies Program is critical to ensure that the 
American automobile industry and manufacturing base will continue to be 
globally competitive, and that we as a Nation will not trade our 
dependence on foreign oil for dependence on foreign batteries and other 
emerging technology.
  I would like to thank my colleague, Mr. Connolly, for offering this 
amendment, and I urge my colleagues to support American innovation and 
manufacturing and support this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia 
will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Harris

  Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 23, line 4, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $6,000,000)''.
       Page 62, line 2, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $6,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Chairman, my amendment will reduce funding for the 
international programs of the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable 
Energy by cutting $6 million out of their $8 million budget and 
transferring it to the spending reduction account to reduce our 
deficit.
  Now, first, Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the committee for doing 
excellent work in cutting the EERE budget by an overall total of 27 
percent, but this program was cut less than that. It was cut by 20 
percent. Mr. Chairman, as I go through the district, the number one 
area that I hear people say let's cut that to attack our deficit is 
foreign aid; and basically, this program is foreign aid. It takes 
scarce American jobs and sends them overseas.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, as you know, our unemployment rate here jumped to 
9.2 percent last week. We created 18,000 jobs, and here in front of us 
we have a program, this international program, that creates jobs. It 
sure does. The problem is they're all in foreign countries. So it takes 
those scarce American jobs and sends them overseas.
  And I agree with the ranking member: Our actions today should have 
jobs as our focus, American jobs. That is why this amendment is 
essential.
  The United States Government now has a $1.5 trillion debt. We borrow 
40 cents out of every dollar spent. We borrow money from China to 
finance our Federal spending and our national debt. And through this 
program, we spend that money in China to make Chinese manufacturers 
more energy efficient. Yes, that is hard to believe, but we do that. We 
take a million dollars and spend it in China to make their factories 
more efficient so they can compete with us so we can lose jobs, lose 
our revenues, and then borrow more money from China to do it all over 
again. We have got to end this vicious cycle, and we have to end it 
with this amendment.
  As chairman of the Energy and Environment Subcommittee in the 
Science, Space and Technology Committee, we held hearings on this 
specific subject. Let me tell you about some of the programs this 
international program funds. It assists manufacturing facilities in 
China and India to reduce their energy use. Well, that's great, but why 
are we helping our economic competitors with hard-earned dollars that 
we borrow from them and then use to make their industries more 
efficient.
  It gets even better. Then we improve energy efficiency in the Chinese 
building sector. Great. Let's strengthen our economic opponents with 
money we actually borrowed from them. In fact, the DOE just announced a 
$25 million project over the next 5 years to support the U.S.-India 
Joint Clean Energy Research and Development Center. Now, why isn't it a 
U.S. energy research and

[[Page H4837]]

development center? Why are we spending hard-earned, hard-borrowed 
dollars overseas?
  Even more programs:
  One to promote energy efficiency in Indian software companies; 
unbelievable. Why aren't we promoting energy efficiencies in American 
software companies.
  Partnering with the Kazakhstan Government to provide training on 
industrial efficiency. Now, I like those auto jobs in the United 
States. Maybe we should, in fact, train our own industry to be more 
efficient and not go to Kazakhstan and spend our money to do it.
  A renewable energy center and solar power project in Chile; energy 
efficiency centers in Peru and Costa Rica; windmills in Mexico. Yeah, 
we are taking this money and we are actually building windmills in 
Mexico. Renewable energy strategy development in the Caribbean, and 
windmills in the Dominican Republic.
  Ladies and gentlemen, I have gone throughout my district. They are 
begging for us to cut the deficit. The President said, he promised he 
would go line by line through that budget and find some items to cut. 
Ladies and gentlemen, this program is ripe for that cutting. We 
shouldn't be sending this money overseas. This doesn't eliminate the 
program; it cuts 75 percent of the funding. It goes a little further 
than the committee.

                              {time}  1940

  We clearly have to allocate America's hard-earned resources to higher 
priorities. Again, I commend the committee for making a start in 
cutting here, but we've got to go further. When we're spending money on 
making Chinese factories more efficient to compete with us and when 
we're building windmills in Mexico with our money, we've gone too far. 
That's why the Citizens Against Government Waste has endorsed this 
amendment. It hardly gets more wasteful than taking hard-earned 
dollars, borrowing from overseas, sending it back over there, and 
creating jobs overseas when we have a 9.2 percent unemployment rate 
here.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I will be brief.
  The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Harris) and I are pretty close, but 
I will respectfully oppose his amendment for a couple of reasons.
  One is that the program that is subject to his amendment is 
coordinating programs with other countries. We're not, by definition, 
sending jobs overseas to other countries. The theory of the program is 
to provide technical assistance for activities to help prime markets 
for clean technologies in major emerging economies, and the theory of 
the program is also that it can bring home lessons learned from other 
experiences and share them at the national, State and local levels.
  I say I reluctantly oppose his amendment and that we are very close 
because I have great concerns over any number of these types of 
programs at the Department of Energy. I have expressed my displeasure 
to the Secretary, among others, that if we are going to invest our 
taxpayers' money--our money--in these endeavors, we ought to be very 
discreet as to how those moneys are spent to develop markets in the 
United States of America and, God bless, the rest of the world.
  So I will in this instance take the Department of Energy at its word, 
and that's why I would respectfully oppose the amendment. I would be 
happy to stay in close communication with the gentleman, and I would be 
happy to stay in very close touch with the Department of Energy 
relative to the management of this program and, assuming the moneys are 
in the fiscal year 2012 budget, to pursue this program to make sure 
that your point is heard and that their expenditures are not violative 
of what you want to do today.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I yield to the chairman, the gentleman from New 
Jersey.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I have mixed views as well.
  Obviously, Israel is a strong ally, and were it not for Kazakhstan, 
we perhaps wouldn't be able to do some things militarily to support our 
troops that are both in Afghanistan and Iraq. I think that it bears 
close watching, but there is a perception that somehow we're giving 
China, India, Brazil, and other countries sort of an advantage. I view 
this program as a two-way street. It does provide a degree of access to 
American companies.
  So I reluctantly oppose your amendment, but I can assure you that 
both of us feel very strongly that it bears watching. It has borne some 
fruit, so it's not money wasted, and it's not money given away to our 
competitors. At least that's my view of it.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. But I think, again, it draws attention to the fact 
that we should be very closely monitoring the department as far as the 
expenditures of these funds.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HARRIS. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Let me just briefly address this so that we can move on.
  We only cut $6 million out of the $8 million. There is actually 
budget language further on that protects a cooperative agreement 
between the U.S. and Israeli Governments, so it does not eliminate all 
the funding; it protects that program, and there will be another 
amendment offered later that will make that quite specific.
  I understand that there is some possibility of actually getting a 
benefit for partnering--and I thank the ranking member for offering 
assistance--but honestly, I'm not sure what we're going to learn from 
Kazakhstan by sending money over there to provide training on 
industrial efficiency. I thought that we were the powerhouse of the 
world in industry. I thought we were the leader of the world. It's fine 
when we have a lot of money, but the fact of the matter is we borrow 40 
cents out of every dollar, and the largest program expenditure outside 
of the joint program with Israel is that expenditure in China.
  Now, I want everyone to understand there is still money available. 
It's in the Department of State budget. This doesn't eliminate these 
programs. This just removes the Department of Energy's contribution. I 
will remind the body why the Department of Energy was formed years and 
years ago. It was to reduce our dependency on foreign oil, and it has 
failed to do so. It has existed for decades, failing to do the mission 
for which it was established. In my district, people in private 
industry tell me, if they had a division or a department that failed to 
do its job for decades, they wouldn't be cutting it back--they'd be 
eliminating it.
  So, again, I thank the chairman and I thank the ranking member, and I 
urge the body to support the amendment.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. In reclaiming my time, I am going to support 
Dr. Harris' amendment.
  As we face this huge budget deficit as a Nation, we've got to look at 
every source of cuts that we can possibly accomplish. It's time not 
only to cut spending, but we've got to start paying back our debts, and 
we're not doing that here in this country. I think it is absolutely 
critical. The American people, the people who are looking for jobs 
today, want us to do the right thing. Programs like this and many 
others are killing our economy, and they're killing jobs in America.
  So I'm going to support Dr. Harris' amendment. I hope at least enough 
of our colleagues here in the House will understand the financial 
crisis that we're in as a Nation and will support it also.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Harris).
  The amendment was agreed to.


           Amendment Offered by Mr. Miller of North Carolina

  Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 23, line 4, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $24,018,000)''.

[[Page H4838]]

       Page 24, line 18, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $50,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is similar 
to others that we have heard today.
  This amendment would reduce the Fossil Energy Research and 
Development account by $24.018 million, and will put as much of that 
money as our rules will allow into the Energy Efficiency and Renewable 
Energy Research, Development, Demonstration, and Deployment.
  The bill now is $5.9 billion less than the administration's request 
and is more than $1 billion less than last year's funding. Fossil 
energy is a glaring exception to the austerity visited upon every other 
kind of energy research, but the Fossil Energy program gets an increase 
of $24 million above what the administration requested and $32 million 
more than last year's levels.
  This amendment would reduce that account, Fossil Energy, to the level 
of the administration's request, and will put as much money as possible 
back into energy efficiency and renewable energy research, which now 
gets a $331 million cut, or more than 25 percent, more than a quarter.
  Mr. Chairman, I agree that we need to be doing fossil energy 
research. It is more than 70 percent of our energy now, and it will be 
the bulk of our energy supply for the foreseeable future. We do need an 
abundant and clean supply of fossil energy, but it's hard to look at 
the spending levels in this bill and not see some hypocrisy at work.
  I am the ranking Democrat on the Energy and Environment Subcommittee, 
and I have heard again and again in committee hearing after committee 
hearing and in subcommittee hearing after subcommittee hearing the same 
stale talking point that it is not the place of the Federal Government 
to pick energy winners and losers and that taxpayers shouldn't have to 
subsidize the development of alternative fuels.

                              {time}  1950

  Just last week, in a hearing in the committee, one of my Republican 
colleagues on the committee said we should promote an all-of-the-above 
approach--oil, nuclear, coal, natural gas. Heck, I'm okay with wind, 
solar, water, biofuels and everything else you can think of as long as 
it isn't subsidized by the American taxpayer. And we've heard that same 
talking point again and again today.
  The subsidy, the help with funding for research that the alternative 
energy now gets, is tiny in comparison to what traditional energy 
sources--fossil fuel and nuclear--have gotten for a long time. And if 
Republicans are now pushing alternative energy and energy efficiency 
technologies away from the public trough, it is so they can make more 
room for fossil fuels and nuclear.
  Of course those traditional industries have been subsidized right 
along, and they continue to be subsidized in this bill today. Taxpayers 
subsidize it, in addition to this little bit of research funding, with 
very significant tax incentives--the subject of discussions over at 
Blair House the last few weeks, and we've heard there is no budging on 
that. And we know that those industries fully expect, if disaster 
strikes, if there is a massive oil spill or, God forbid, a nuclear 
accident, they won't really have to pay the cost. They will get help 
with that; they will get bailed out.
  We are not talking about basic early-stage research here; that's 
somewhere else in the bill. This is all late-stage applied research. 
But in the case of alternative energies, we have fledgling industries, 
economically vulnerable industries that have some ways to go to get to 
the marketplace before they can turn a profit. And on the other hand, 
we've got an industry that is 70 percent of our current energy supply. 
They're up and running, they're in good shape, they're fabulously 
profitable.
  The top five oil and gas companies made $32 billion in profits in the 
first quarter--the first quarter, $32 billion, 3 months. To that 
industry Republicans say, belly on up to the public trough, boys; we'll 
make room for you.
  The energy research that we're talking about in the EER&E is wind, 
solar, biomass, water--on and on. You know what they are. We need to 
make some of those technologies work, or we are not going to have 
enough energy in the future. And in the shorter term, they promised 
healthy competition for the fossil fuel industry to bring down the cost 
of energy for Americans.
  It's hard, in fact, to look at the hostility of Republicans to those 
industries, to those emerging energy technologies and think a big part 
of their hostility is not at the bidding of the fossil fuel industry to 
smother that competition in the crib.
  I urge adoption of this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. The gentleman from North Carolina's amendment 
increases funding for the Energy Efficiency and Renewable account, a 
program that I said earlier has seen record increases since 2007 and 
still has $9 billion in unspent stimulus funds in its account from 2009 
to spend. On that alone, I oppose this amendment and urge my colleagues 
to do so as well.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Miller).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from North 
Carolina will be postponed.


               Amendment Offered by Mr. Broun of Georgia

  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 23, line 4, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $26,510,000)''.
       Page 62, line 2, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $26,510,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, my amendment cuts $26.51 million 
from the Vehicle Technologies Deployment Subprogram in the Energy 
Efficiency and Renewable Energy's Clean Cities program and transfers 
those funds to the spending reduction account.
  The House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology has identified 
many concerns with this program which it has shared with the Department 
of Energy. This program filters over $25 million to about 90 coalitions 
to buy electric charging stations, E85 pumps, alternative fuel 
vehicles, and other infrastructure.
  Beyond concerns with how this program is run and how the dollars are 
being spent, this program should not be funded or run by the Federal 
Government. This type of program is best served by the private sector 
or local and State governments.
  Despite the management concerns, the Department of Energy has 
recently announced its intention to broaden the scope of the Vehicle 
Technologies Deployment Subprogram to also include the National Clean 
Fleets program. One mission of this program is to assist Fortune 100 
companies to upgrade their commercial fleet. Is this really an 
appropriate use of Federal dollars when we are facing a $1.6 trillion 
deficit? Is it really appropriate to be helping companies such as 
Enterprise, GE, and Ryder upgrade their fleets to electric or 
alternative fuel vehicles? The answer to these questions, in my 
opinion, is no. In fact, I think most of the American people believe 
the answer to those questions is no.
  I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HARRIS. The doctor from Georgia is absolutely right. We held a 
hearing in my subcommittee on this very topic, and it was very 
instructive because for the last several weeks we have heard a lot 
about, oh, my gosh, these giveaways to corporations and

[[Page H4839]]

how we have to look at them critically. Well, here is a program where 
we can put $25.5 million back into our deficit reduction by reducing 
corporate subsidies.
  The doctor is right, GE doesn't need a subsidy, but they get it 
through this program. UPS doesn't need a subsidy; they get it through 
this program. They all make money, millions and billions of dollars, 
but this program gives them another subsidy. Verizon doesn't need a 
subsidy, but they get it through this program. They make a lot of 
money. They make a lot of money. This program subsidizes it.
  And the gentleman is right, E85 is probably a bad choice. Why are we 
spending money--money that we have to borrow from the Chinese every 
day--in order to put E85 pumps around or to convert vehicles to E85 as 
part of this program? Mr. Chairman, it makes no sense.
  This is another little contribution we can make. Our constituents 
have sent us here to deal with the Federal deficit. The doctor makes a 
contribution, $25.5 million. We held a hearing on this. You know, their 
press release on one of these was ``green beer for St. Patrick's Day'' 
because they actually spent money for a beer distributing company to 
upgrade their trucks.

                              {time}  2000

  Last I looked, that business made money. We shouldn't be subsidizing 
it.
  This is a good amendment. The body should adopt the amendment, help 
cut our deficit, and stop sending money to corporations that simply 
don't need our help.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's 
amendment, and it would appear there will be others differing in 
amounts but very similar in intent. And I think that they do not 
represent a wise energy policy for this country.
  The first point I would make is that the bill includes a reduction of 
$491 million for the overall renewable program from fiscal year 2011, 
an even more significant reduction compared to fiscal year 2010. So the 
committee, I believe, fully recognizes their responsibilities to be 
careful fiscally.
  But I also must indicate that someone who I have a great deal of 
respect for, my senior Senator in the State of Indiana, Senator Lugar, 
has always characterized our energy problem as a national security 
problem. I think we all recognize it is an economic problem. We can 
debate the environmental aspects. I happen to think it is an 
environmental problem myself. But I don't think anyone can dispute the 
fact that it is a national security issue, relative to where we are 
buying so many of our petroleum products. And to gain energy 
independence, we are going to need a different and more diverse matrix 
of energy sources.
  Seventy percent of our energy today is created through coal and 
natural gas, and that cannot continue. That is not healthy for our 
Nation. It is not healthy for our economy. It is not healthy for our 
national security. We need to diversify. In this instance, the 
committee has recognized our fiscal responsibility but continues to 
make an investment in our economic, our job, and our energy futures. 
And I do oppose the gentleman's amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I would like to associate my remarks with those of 
the ranking member.
  This amendment would slash even more than we did in our committee, 
the Vehicle Technologies Program and this Energy Efficiency and 
Renewable Energy account. There is almost nothing left in the account 
now. Maybe the desire is to put this whole account out of business; but 
personally, I think that is unwise. We have made the tough choices. We 
have held our hearings. We have had the input. And I would ask Members 
to oppose the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia will 
be postponed.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Welch

  Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 23, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $491,000,000)''.
       Page 33, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $491,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Vermont is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chair, I have been sitting here listening to what, in 
fact, I think is a very interesting debate: what's the role that the 
taxpayer, through this body, should play in trying to steer an energy 
policy towards efficiency. There were a lot of contentious debates that 
we've had about energy policy, about climate change.
  One of the areas where I have found that we have frequently had some 
common ground is the notion that less is more. Whatever the source of 
energy that you use or favor, if a consumer is able to use less oil--
that's what we rely on in Vermont to heat our homes--or less 
electricity that's generated by nuclear, you can save money. And the 
efficiency title is one that gives us an opportunity to try to promote 
efficiency, where doing so has significant benefits.
  Last year, Mr. Chair, we passed in this House--it failed in the 
Senate--an energy efficiency bill that would have given homeowners an 
incentive to put some of their money into home retrofits, and the 
government would have matched that. So you would have had an all-in 
situation.
  And when you're retrofitting your home, you are using local 
contractors who have been hammered by the collapse in housing. They 
need work. It's work that is done locally in your district and mine. 
Ninety-five percent of the materials that are used in any kind of 
efficiency work in a commercial building or in home building are 
manufactured in America. So even without a debate about Make It in 
America, we would be getting the benefit of manufacturing in America. 
And obviously, it would then have an impact of saving the homeowner 
money. That particular bill would have saved about $10 million in 
energy bills over 10 years. So that's real savings for homeowners.
  The bill that is brought before the floor makes a decision to 
dramatically cut the efficiency title by about 27 percent, or $491 
million. What my amendment would do is propose to restore that money 
and take that from the Nuclear Security Weapons Activities account 
which has $7.1 billion. So diverting the amount of money this amendment 
proposes would not wipe out that account in any way.
  I think all of us would like to find some places we can work together 
despite the very significant differences between us; and efficiency, I 
found in the last Congress, was one of those areas where we had some 
potential to do it. Then-Ranking Member Barton was supportive of some 
of these efforts.
  And the money in this title actually does end up promoting projects 
back in your district and mine. I will just give some examples. And 
these are small things. They are small things but important. In 
Burlington, Vermont, we had a program through this title that helped a 
community market install 136 solar panels on the roof of the city 
market that generated 31 kilowatts of power. I mean, that's not going 
to save the world, but it created jobs. It reduced their costs. And it 
was local, local people doing it.
  In Waterbury, a home for seniors was retrofitted and improved with 
insulation, better boiler controls and efficient lighting. Again, it's 
not rocket science, but it's real. It was real Vermonters doing the 
installation work. It was insulation that was manufactured in America. 
And it made those seniors warmer. It made their bill lower. That kind 
of thing can happen all around.

[[Page H4840]]

  In Lunenburg, Vermont, way up by the Canadian border, the 430-cow 
Auburn Star Farm got some loans and grants through a State energy 
program that was funded from this title. It allowed them to build a 
biodigester, and that digester will dispose of the waste from the dairy 
cows, produce biogas to generate electricity, and help the bottom line 
of that farm that is struggling with low milk prices and high costs.
  So the real question that is before us is: Do we want to promote 
energy efficiency at the local level in all the various ways people can 
come up with to save money when we know that in your district or mine, 
Republican, Democrat, or independent, we've got out-of-work 
contractors, we've got homeowners who want to save money, and we've got 
manufacturers who want to sell their goods? So I urge the body to 
consider favorably the amendment that is before you.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Certainly let me salute the gentleman from 
Vermont. Certainly Vermonters are often characterized as being 
independent and self-sufficient and self-reliant. Of course I would 
have to note for the record that you are 72 percent relying on nuclear 
power in Vermont. There may be other forms of power, so you might just 
want to check on that, just for the record.

                              {time}  2010

  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment because this 
amendment decreases funding for weapons activities by $491 million in 
order to increase, as we heard, the Energy Efficiency and Renewable 
account. Modernization of the nuclear complex is a critical national 
priority and must be funded, and that doesn't matter whether it's the 
Obama administration or the Bush administration. All of our 
administrations are working to make sure that we have a nuclear 
stockpile that is safe, reliable, and verifiable.
  With years of stagnant funding, we have put off long enough the 
investments that are needed to sustain our nuclear capabilities into 
the future. The funding in our bill for weapons activities is both now, 
as a result, timely and urgent. When every tax dollar must be spent 
well, we cannot enact cuts that will risk our national security while 
throwing money at poorly planned programs that have large balances, 
which I mentioned earlier--$9 billion in the EERE account that's 
unspent of stimulus money.
  So not so reluctantly, I rise in opposition to the amendment and urge 
my colleagues to vote accordingly.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Conaway). The gentleman from Indiana is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I also have to rise, with great respect 
to my colleague, in opposition to the amendment.
  I certainly appreciate, having just talked about needing to invest in 
a mix of energy sources in the future, what the intent of the amendment 
is. He obviously wants to return us to where we are in fiscal year 
2011. I would certainly point out for the record that at that level, 
$1.795 billion, we would still be significantly below where we were 
last year, fiscal year 2010, when our level of spending in this account 
was $2.24 billion.
  The problem I have here is particularly where the money has come 
from, and that is the weapons account. Too often, and we saw it again 
last week, we do tend, I think unnecessarily, to hold the defense 
accounts harmless. In this case the committee has recommended, and it 
was very carefully considered, an increase in the weapons account. If 
the amendment was adopted, the fact is we would be $269 million below 
current year level, for a cut of 4.3 percent.
  I have on numerous occasions in my district, in conversations with 
colleagues on the floor and elsewhere, suggested it is time, if we are 
going to solve our budget crisis in the United States of America, for 
everybody to belly up on both sides of the equation. And I don't care 
where you're getting you're paycheck or how you're earning your 
contract money; I cannot believe if you are a defense function of the 
Government of the United States you can't find one penny, one cent of 
savings out of every dollar we spend. Having said that, that comes out 
to 1 percent. I think at this point the 4.3 percent in the weapons 
programs, that is very important as far as their safety, their security 
and surety, is a step beyond that 1 percent I have so often talked 
about the last months. So with great respect to my colleague, I would 
also oppose this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WELCH. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection?
  Without objection, the gentleman from Vermont is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WELCH. Just in clarification, Member from New Jersey, Vermont has 
about one-third nuclear power. That was misreported I am not sure by 
whom, but it's one-third nuclear, one-third hydro, and one-third other.
  Thank you.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. This is from the EIA.
  Mr. WELCH. And it is incorrect.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I assume it is verifiable. Twenty-two percent is 
hydro and 72 percent is nuclear. Nothing to be ashamed of.
  Mr. WELCH. All right. I will just say it's news to most of us in 
Vermont. And, in fact, there is a big dispute about the relicensing of 
the current nuclear reactor we have.
  But I appreciate the gentleman. Thank you.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont will 
be postponed.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Pompeo

  Mr. POMPEO. I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 23, line 4, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $45,641,000)''.
       Page 62, line 2, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $45,641,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kansas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I presented would 
decrease the Department of Energy's Office of Energy Efficiency and 
Renewable Energy program by $45.6 million and the funding for DOE's 
Vehicle Technologies Program.
  While I am certainly 100 percent behind innovation and the 
development of domestic sources of energy and new vehicle technologies, 
this program is simply not the way to do it. We shouldn't take money 
from one set of citizens to subsidize companies that, frankly, have had 
subsidies for too long in the development of new energy vehicle 
technologies.
  Look, it's a subsidy program, plain and simple. The program is part 
of this present administration's liberal agenda to replace the free 
market with government bureaucrats in determining which energy sources 
we ought to use to propel our vehicles and for transportation.
  You know, we are already seeing tremendous advances in hybrid 
technology and electric vehicle technology. In the State of Kansas, we 
have got folks coming up with wonderful, great, innovative ideas. They 
are seeking private capital markets to make that innovation happen. We 
have enormous venture capital firms that have made significant 
investment in these technologies. Why would the government use taxpayer 
money to compete with those ventures? They don't need the subsidies. 
They'll make these things work.
  This is a quarter billion dollars in an R&D subsidy in a sector that 
has received subsidies for decades, and they no longer need that. They 
are far

[[Page H4841]]

along. They can make the progress. They can make these vehicles work. 
And the market will also choose them when they provide a technology 
that provides a cost-effective solution for folks who want to drive 
their vehicles and for companies that want to move their products and 
goods all across our Nation.
  You know, these subsidies come in lots of forms, and I have opposed 
them in every form. They come in our Tax Code. They come in the form of 
grants. They come in the form of other programs. Both the House and the 
Senate have recently rejected tax subsidies for specific fuel purposes 
already this year. This Vehicle Technologies Program should be no 
different.
  The President today said that we need to eat our peas. I suggest that 
he was suggesting that we need to do some difficult things. I happen to 
like peas. But he said we should do some difficult things. This is an 
easy thing. I would just as soon see this entire technology subsidy go 
away, but my suggestion here in this amendment is only this: that we 
return to spending levels from 2008, just 2 short years ago. I, for 
one, certainly don't believe, and I don't think the folks in Kansas and 
across this country believe, that we spent too little money on vehicle 
technology subsidies in 2008.
  So I would urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I would point out that we have a vote pending in the 
House for a reduction of about $26.5 million from this account. This 
would be an additional reduction of another $45 million from this 
account.
  The gentleman noted that what his intent is is to get the Vehicle 
Technologies Program, if I understand him correctly, back to where we 
were in 2008. If I did understand him correctly, I would suggest that 
that is why we are where we are today, because the levels for vehicle 
technology research were inadequate, totally inadequate in 2008.
  You drive by a gas station today and gas is $4 a gallon. All of us 
repeatedly are asked what are we going to do about gas prices. If we 
are not going to act as far as price fixing, collusion, cartels, 
monopolies, speculation, and we can't do anything about the laws of 
supply and demand, I have indicated to my constituents the thing that 
Congress can do most effectively for the price of gasoline is help our 
constituents buy less of it.

                              {time}  2020

  If we can, through vehicle technology research, help everyone in this 
country get an extra mile per gallon, we have helped them with the 
price of gasoline. If we begin to cut back to prior year levels as far 
as the investment in making sure people can move in this country as 
efficiently as possible and reduce our dependency on imported oil, we 
are not going to make economic progress in this country and are going 
to continue to be held hostage to those overseas who send that oil to 
us for our dollars that they then use for other nefarious purposes.
  Again, I think this is an ill-advised amendment. I think it takes us 
in the wrong direction. We should be looking for ways to ensure that we 
do good research to get more miles per gallon and to make sure that the 
Department of Energy also, as they do this research, ensures that it is 
applied not for more power in cars but for more miles per gallon, 
because, again, these are our taxpayers dollars.
  So for those reasons, again, I would be opposed to the gentleman's 
amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Let me just say to the gentleman from Kansas, he 
said he would like us at least to go back to, in this particular 
account, to the 2008 level. Maybe there is some consolation: In our 
bill, we actually go back to 2007 in this account, and the bill is 
just, just beneath the overall allocation, in terms of the final 
product, is just beneath the 2006 level. You won't find too many bills 
on the appropriations docket that go back to that level, recognizing 
this is 2011. Our committee goes back to just below 2006 levels. So 
give us a little bit of credit.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Pompeo).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kansas will 
be postponed.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Tonko

  Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 23, line 4, after the dollar amount insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $226,800,000)''.
       Page 33, line 20, after the dollar amount insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $226,800,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chair, first I want to thank my colleague, the 
gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass) for offering this bipartisan 
amendment with me. He is a leader on energy issues, and I thank him for 
his support.
  Mr. Chair, the Tonko-Bass amendment is simple. It will restore three 
specific, results-driven energy efficiency programs within the fiscal 
year 2012 Energy and Water Development appropriations bill to last 
year's levels. It is neither a stretch nor an overreach. It is a 
balanced approach, and it is fully offset.
  First, this amendment will restore funding to the Weatherization 
Assistance Program, or WAP. WAP is the largest residential efficiency 
program in our Nation. It reduces the energy burden on low-income 
families and the elderly and disabled, and creates jobs, invests in 
local businesses, and advances technology, state-of-the-art technology. 
The 35 percent savings as a result of weatherizing homes under this 
program saves $437 in annual utility bills for the average homeowner.
  Second, the amendment restores funding to the State Energy Program or 
SEP. SEP is the only cost-shared program administered by the United 
States Department of Energy that provides resources directly to the 
States for allocation by the Governor for use in energy efficiency. 
This includes 56 State and territory energy offices. And according to a 
study by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, for every $1 in federal SEP 
funds, annual savings of 1.03 million source Btu's are saved, along 
with the cost savings of $7.22 and a leveraging of $10.71 on that same 
$1.
  Finally, the Tonko-Bass amendment restores funding to the Building 
Technologies Programs. Buildings in the United States use about 40 
percent of our total energy and two-thirds of our electricity. As such, 
this program seeks to promote American innovation and technologies to 
reduce operating costs to building owners, which is vital in today's 
market.
  Finally, Mr. Chair, this amendment has a net impact of zero dollars 
on budget authority and reduces 2012 outlays by $58 million, according 
to the Congressional Budget Office. It does so by offsetting the 
increase of spending with cuts to the Weapons Activities Account, 
specifically to the Readiness in Technical Base Facilities account. The 
Appropriations Committee report suggests they are seriously concerned 
with the recent cost growth reported for construction of two major 
projects in the account. The committee report claims modernization will 
take several years and the considerable number of variables still at 
play argues against an excessively aggressive funding curve.
  Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I wish to close by saying I do not believe 
we can afford to slip any further behind our global competitors in 
energy investments. A vote for this amendment is a vote in favor of 
decreasing our dependence on foreign oil, creating local, private 
sector contracting jobs, and providing State control on energy 
projects.

[[Page H4842]]

  Again, I would like to commend the gentleman from New Hampshire for 
his leadership on this issue and thank him for his support.
  I urge adoption of this amendment.

     To: Southern States Members of the U.S. House of 
         Representatives
     From: Kenneth J. Nemeth, Secretary and Executive Director
     Date: July 7, 2011
     Re FY12 SEP, WAP and BTP Appropriations under H.R. 2354--
         Tonko Amendment
       As an interstate compact organization representing 16 
     southern states and two U.S. territories, we are disappointed 
     with the budget cuts to the U.S. State Energy Program (SEP), 
     Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP), and the Department 
     of Energy's (DOE) Building Technologies Program (BTP) under 
     the House Energy and Water Development FY 12 appropriations 
     measure that was approved on June 15, 2011. The Southern 
     States Energy Board (SSEB) has a long and direct relationship 
     with the state energy offices and fully supports their role 
     as a key component of implementing our country's energy 
     policies.
       I am writing to you to ask for your support of 
     Representative Tonko's amendment to H.R. 2354 to restore 
     funds to the State Energy Program, Weatherization Assistance 
     Program and the Building Technologies Program. Representative 
     Tonko will be circulating a ``Dear Colleague'' letter seeking 
     your support for the amendment and we are urging you to sign 
     in support of the amendment. Mr. Tonko's amendment would add 
     funding for these three key programs to bring them up to FY11 
     levels as follows:
       State Energy Program--add $25 million for a total of $50 
     million
       Weatherization Assistance Program--add $141 million for a 
     total of $174 million
       DOE Building Technologies Program--add $62 million for a 
     total of $212 million
       This Nation's future is reliant on reducing our energy 
     dependence. As a policy maker, it is important to understand 
     the role of State Energy Offices and the importance of the 
     State Energy Program, Weatherization Program and the Building 
     Technologies Program to achieve these national goals. The SEP 
     allows states to support a variety of energy efficiency and 
     renewable energy projects including improvements to schools 
     and hospitals, establishing partnerships with utilities, 
     businesses and industry and facilitating the economic 
     development opportunities for states while maximizing the 
     development of states' renewable energy resources.
       In keeping with protecting our economy while increasing the 
     efficient use of energy, the U.S. DOE Buildings Technologies 
     Program is essential and requires full FY11 funding levels to 
     continue deploying technologies that will reduce pressure on 
     tight energy supplies and help to restrain prices while 
     protecting the environment. This program encourages 
     innovation for emerging technologies and contributes to our 
     global leadership while creating jobs and strengthening our 
     economy.
       Also, the Weatherization Program is essential to helping 
     low-income families, the elderly and disabled by improving 
     the energy efficiency of their homes and lowering their 
     energy bills. During the economic strain that we are 
     experiencing all across the country, cutting funding to this 
     program would create even a larger burden on our citizens 
     forcing them into more difficult choices on basic needs.
       I strongly urge you to vote in favor of the Tonko Amendment 
     so that these critical programs can continue contributing 
     toward our Nation's energy goals.
                                  ____

                                      U.S. Green Building Council,
                                     Washington, DC, July 7, 2011.
     Hon. Paul Tonko,
     House of Representatives, Cannon House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
     Hon. Charles F. Bass,
     House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressmen Tonko and Bass: On behalf of the U.S. 
     Green Building Council and our nearly 16,000 organizational 
     members and 80 local chapters, I would like to thank you for 
     introducing an amendment to the FY'12 Energy and Water 
     Appropriations Bill that will restore funding for the U.S. 
     Department of Energy's Weatherization Assistance Program, 
     U.S. State Energy Program, and Building Technologies Program 
     to FY'11 levels. Each of these programs has an established 
     record of successfully returning significant value to the 
     American people. Continued funding for these programs is a 
     crucial investment that reaches beyond short-term energy 
     efficiency: they create jobs and savings opportunities for 
     low-income families; support and spur building industry 
     activity; and contribute to long-term national energy 
     security goals.
       Over the past thirty years, the Weatherization Assistance 
     Program has served as the nation's largest residential energy 
     conservation program. According to the Energy Information 
     Administration (EIA)'s Short Term Energy Report, homes 
     weatherized through WAP saved low-income residents $2.1 
     billion dollars in 2010. Weatherization returns $2.51 for 
     every $1 invested and annually decreases national energy 
     consumption by the equivalent of 24.1 million barrels of oil. 
     WAP is an essential part of both present and future national 
     energy saving strategies.
       The U.S. State Energy Program is a thirty-year-old cost-
     shared program that provides direct support and funding to 
     State Energy Offices to develop and implement state allocated 
     energy efficiency and innovation projects. The Oak Ridge 
     National Laboratory (ORNL) found that, in a single year, the 
     program enabled states to collectively perform 15,264 energy 
     audits, 12,896 building upgrades, provide $12,345,608 in 
     grants, and loan $30,403,388 towards energy efficiency 
     projects. ORNL also found that $1 of federal funding 
     leveraged $10.71 in state and private funding.
       The Building Technologies Program works with organizations 
     across sectors to help develop technologies that make 
     commercial and residential buildings more efficient and 
     affordable. Over the life of the program, $14 billion of 
     direct savings to the consumer has been reinvested in local 
     economies. Additionally, since its founding 20 years ago, the 
     Building Technologies Programs has saved the equivalent of 
     over 12 billion gallons of gasoline.
       This suite of programs provides both measurable and 
     immeasurable value to tax-payers across the country. The U.S. 
     Green Building Council commends your leadership by supporting 
     these programs as they have proven to be a sound investment 
     for this country's ability to thrive. We urge all other 
     members to support this amendment to restore funding for each 
     of these programs to FY'll levels to maintain this country's 
     commitment to energy security and economic stability.
           Sincerely,

                                                 Jason Hartke,

                                  Vice President, National Policy,
     U.S. Green Building Council.
                                  ____


    Support the Tonko/Bass Amendment to the FY'12 Energy and Water 
                    Development Appropriations Bill

                                                    July 11, 2011.
       Dear Representative: The undersigned companies, 
     organizations and associations all strongly urge you to 
     support the bi-partisan Tonko/Bass amendment to restore 
     funding for energy efficiency programs within the FY'12 
     Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill. If the 
     country is serious about addressing our energy security 
     concerns, reducing energy costs, promoting economic growth 
     and domestic jobs and cutting oil imports, then we should not 
     give up on energy efficiency programs. Energy efficiency is a 
     cornerstone of a balanced energy policy.
       The Tonko/Bass amendment would restore funding to the FY'11 
     levels for the Weatherization Assistance Program, the State 
     Energy Program (SEP) and the Buildings Technology Program.
       The Weatherization Assistance Program is the largest 
     residential energy efficiency program in the nation. It 
     reduces the energy burden on low-income families, the elderly 
     and disabled, and creates jobs, invests in local businesses 
     and advances technology. The 35% energy savings as a result 
     of weatherizing homes under this program saves $437 in annual 
     utility bills for the average homeowner.
       SEP delivers extraordinary economic benefits to all sectors 
     of the economy by working with the private sector in 
     delivering key energy services. A study by Oak Ridge National 
     Laboratory found that for every federal dollar invested in 
     this program, $7 in energy savings are achieved and almost 
     $11 in non-federal funds are leveraged.
       Buildings consume approximately 40% of our energy in this 
     country. The Buildings Technology Program conducts critical 
     R&D that permits the private sector to incorporate new 
     technologies into their construction. This allows businesses 
     to maintain their competitive edge by reducing their costs of 
     doing business and expanding against fierce global 
     competition. These new products and technologies also help 
     consumers every day.
       These three programs that would be restored to FY'11 
     funding levels as a result of this amendment are critical to 
     our future. The proposed amendment will increase 
     Weatherization funding by $141.3 million, SEP funding by $25 
     million and the Buildings Technology Program by $60.5 
     million, for a total of $226.8 million. The amendment is 
     fully offset.
           Sincerely,
       Adirondack Community Action Programs, Inc. (NY)
       Alexandria Economic Opportunity Commission (VA)
       Alliance to Save Energy
       American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy
       Association of State Energy Research and Technology 
     Transfer Institutions
       Baltimore County Community Action Agency
       Boston Community Development, Inc.
       Business Council for Sustainable Energy
       California/Nevada Community Action Partnership
       Central Florida Community Action Agency (CFAA), Inc.
       Chesapeake Climate Action Network
       Citizens Utility Board of Wisconsin
       Community Action Partnership
       Community Action Partnership of Idaho
       Community Action Partnership of Lake County (IL)
       Community Action Partnership of Northwest Montana
       Community Action Partnership of San Luis Obispo Co., Inc. 
     (CA)
       Conservation Law Foundation
       Conservation Services Group
       Corporation for Ohio Appalachian Development
       Direct Energy

[[Page H4843]]

       Earth Advantage Institute
       Eastern Idaho Community Action Partnership
       Efficiency First
       ENE (Environment Northeast)
       Energy Future Coalition
       Energy Platforms, LLC
       Environmental and Energy Study Institute
       Environment America
       Illuminating Engineering Society
       Izaak Walton League of America
       Jefferson County Committee for Economic Opportunity (AL)
       Johnson Controls, Inc.
       Knauf Insulation
       LACAP (LA)
       League of Conservation Voters
       Mid-Willamette Valley Community Action Agency (OR)
       National Association for State Community Services Programs
       National Association of Energy Service Companies
       National Association of State Energy Officials (NASEO)
       National Community Action Foundation
       National Insulation Association
       National Wildlife Federation
       Natural Resources Defense Council
       Newburgh Community Action Committee, Inc. (NY)
       Nicholas Community Action (WV)
       North American Insulation Manufacturing Association
       North Carolina Community Action Association
       Northeast Missouri Community Action Agency
       NYS Community Action Association (NY)
       Ohio Association of Community Action Agencies
       Ohio Heartland Community Action Commission
       Ohio Partners for Affordable Energy
       People Incorporated of Virginia
       Polyisocyanurate Insulation Manufacturers Association
       Pro Action of Steuben and Yates, Inc. (NY)
       Safe Climate Campaign
       Schenectady Community Action Program (NY)
       S.E. Idaho Community Action Agency, Inc.
       Sierra Club
       Southeastern Association of Community Action Agencies (NC)
       Supportive Housing Network of New York
       The Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors National 
     Association, Inc. (SMACNA)
       Tompkins Community Action, Inc. (NY)
       The Dow Chemical Company
       The Mechanical Contractors Association of America (MCAA)
       The Weidt Group
       Union of Concerned Scientists
       U.S. Green Buildings Council
       West CAP (WI)
       West Virginia Community Action Partnership, Inc.
       Wider Opportunities for Women
       WSOS Community Action Commission, Inc. (OH)

  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. In order to increase funding for this energy 
efficiency and renewable account, the gentleman's amendment again 
suggests we decrease funding for weapons activities.
  As I said earlier the modernization of the nuclear complex is a 
critical national security priority and must be refunded. Reductions of 
this magnitude would be unacceptable and impact our ability and our 
nuclear security strategy.
  These reductions in the nuclear account would be to increase funding 
for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy programs primarily in the 
area of weatherization in the State Energy Program. For your 
information, these two programs have $3.4 billion in unspent funds from 
the 2009 stimulus and a full $2.7 billion is expected to be available 
for use in fiscal year 2012.
  They don't need any more money. The Department of Energy needs to get 
the money out of the door, and if they aren't capable, they need to 
make sure States that have received money get money out of the door. So 
I therefore oppose the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BASS of New Hampshire. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BASS of New Hampshire. As much as it pains me to oppose the 
position of my good friend from the State of New Jersey, I rise in 
support of this very worthy amendment and want to thank my friend from 
New York for his sponsorship of it.
  As he said, it raises the Weatherization Assistance Program by about 
$141.3 million, the State Energy Program by $25 million, and the 
Buildings Technologies Program by $60.5 million, basically to the level 
funded at the 2011 level. It is offset, as was mentioned, by a 
reduction of an increase in the Nuclear Security Administration's 
Weapons Activities, which would make that line item level funded as 
well.
  And I believe, as has been said by my friend from Indiana, as well as 
my friend from New Jersey, that the Weapons Activities Programs are 
laudable, especially as they relate to the safety and security of our 
weapons stockpile. But I think level funding the 2011 levels is 
adequate.

                              {time}  2030

  When you look at the weatherization programs and what they do, you 
can't dispute it. Low-income individuals cannot afford to spend money 
on efficiency. It's just not possible. Yet when they do, it has a 
positive impact on all sorts of other programs, one of which is LIHEAP.
  As was mentioned by my friend from New York, these programs pay back 
on the order of $7, $8, $9, $10, $11 to $1 spent, not only in savings 
to low-income individuals but also to the Federal Government. This is 
good for the economy. It puts people to work. It's good for energy 
efficiency and lessening our dependence on foreign sources of oil, and 
it does contribute to the long-term national energy goals for this 
country as I see them.
  So all that Mr. Tonko and I are looking for is level funding for 
fiscal year 2011 for both the nuclear weapons program as well as the 
weatherization program, the State Energy Program, and the Building 
Technologies Program, which benefit so many people in so many different 
parts of America.
  So I urge adoption of this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the last 
word.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from New York is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. TONKO. For a point of clarification, I would just point out the 
statutory deadline for the weatherization program and the State Energy 
Program is on March 31 of any given year, in this case 2012. So, of 
course, it's not all spent yet. There is expected to be an accelerated 
spending on these investments that are made. The drawdown on those 
moneys will come in an accelerated way. But also the intent was a 3-
year spend-out. And I think if we pull the rug out from these job 
creators at this stage, we stand to reduce employment among our private 
sector contractors, our builders and renovators. What I had seen in New 
York, especially with the State Energy Programs, they had a 3-year 
waiting list.
  There is a great deal of good that comes from this program, and I 
think everyone in this Chamber is well served by investment in this 
program.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York 
will be postponed.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Garrett

  Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 23, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $300,000,000)''.
       Page 24, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $32,000,000)''.
       Page 28, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $167,500,000)''.
       Page 32, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $500,000)''.
       Page 62, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $500,000,000)''.

  Mr. GARRETT (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent to consider the amendment read.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from New Jersey?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.

[[Page H4844]]

  Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to rise with me in 
support for my amendment, which will save Americans over $500 million.
  My amendment before us today makes reasonable and targeted spending 
reductions in order to do what? Achieve significant savings that will 
contribute to our Nation's fiscal health.
  Mr. Chairman, we must really now step forward and take bold steps to 
reduce spending. And I do commend my colleague from the State of New 
Jersey for the hard work that he has put in, and I appreciate so many 
of the comments that he has already made on the floor, pointing out to 
the other side that in so many cases there is money in these accounts, 
the money hasn't been spent, and they have taken a serious look to try 
to rein in spending throughout the committee process. For they realize 
that our Nation is on a path to bankruptcy and we have maxed out our 
Nation's credit card.
  So while the committee did an admirable job and made significant cuts 
in the underlying bill, I stand here myself, and I and the Republican 
Study Committee believe that we can go further than this. So this 
amendment is a very reasonable attempt at showing that this body is 
serious about cutting spending.
  Mr. Chairman, for too long the Federal Government's energy programs 
have been sold to the American public as basically wise investments 
that will yield vast new technologies whose costs would basically pale 
in comparison to the benefits later on. But when you think about it, 
when you think about the billions and billions of dollars that we have 
spent year after year, our energy infrastructure remains largely the 
same in many respects, and we are still here today dependent upon 
foreign sources of oil. And energy prices? Well, they just continue to 
spiral upward.
  The other side talked wise energy policy. Well, time and time again, 
Federal energy programs have failed to live up to their potential. 
These Federal programs have allowed the government to basically play 
venture capitalists, if you will, and they do so not with their own 
money. Not at all. They do it with taxpayer moneys. And despite the 
little return on their investment, they have little choice in making 
these investments. American taxpayers basically are commanded to 
increase this investment every year.
  For example--I will just give out one since we have been here for a 
long time this evening--the American people are being asked by their 
government to invest literally millions to promote something called 
``advanced solid-state lighting.'' What is that? It's a technology that 
even its supporters can see is far too expensive to compete in today's 
marketplace. So does this sound like something that an intelligent 
investor would do? I think not. But only Members of Congress who are 
spending other people's money would do so.
  Mr. Chairman, the United States is home to the most vibrant 
marketplace of ideas and investors. So the very best way for government 
to encourage energy innovation and revolutionary technology is to do 
what? It is to use that marketplace and get out of the way and allow 
private capital to make those investments. It is in the marketplace 
where private individuals will assess the risks and rewards, and they 
will invest responsibly with their own money on projects that will 
merit further development.
  So to conclude, considering the precarious state of our economy and 
the fiscal condition of this country, the government can no longer 
invest in some of these extremely risky and unproven projects without 
regard to loss and expense. Government can no longer play the role of 
that reckless investor. We must eliminate the waste where it exists and 
encourage the Federal Government to spend the American public's money 
in a wise and prudent manner.
  For that reason I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
vote in favor of this amendment and fiscal responsibility.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. First of all, let me compliment my colleague and 
good friend from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett). And, of course, I'm 
reluctant because he's done his homework and he's worked hard, and I 
believe, with him, that we need to reduce Federal spending. We've been 
going over a financial precipice.
  But we on the Energy and Water Committee made a commitment. Of 
course, we were given a very low allocation, so we had to meet that. 
But we have cut Energy and Water back to approximately the 2006 level 
after multiple hearings. We have put into the bill more oversight. I 
believe we have made the tough choices. We've reviewed all accounts. 
We've put at the pinnacle, of course, our responsibility for national 
security, national defense, and the weapons program and the nuclear 
navy, the next class of Ohio ballistic submarines, and also made 
substantial investments in the Army Corps of Engineers.
  I am reluctant to oppose this amendment, but I think we've made the 
tough choices. I urge Members to oppose the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I rise also to join my chairman in opposition to the 
gentleman's amendment relative to, again, cutting back on what I think 
are very necessary investments in our economy as far as research, both 
as far as renewables, as far as fossil energy, as far as the science 
account.
  The gentleman mentioned advanced solid-state lighting. It is my 
understanding that Philips has indicated that a small investment in 
manufacturing technology to improve the mechanisms as far as the 
construction and manufacturing of these lightbulbs would allow them to 
bring back jobs that are currently outsourced overseas. If we make that 
investment, and I hope we do, I certainly would want to join with other 
colleagues to see if, in fact, Philips Electronics is good to their 
word. But at this point I would state my objection.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey 
will be postponed.

                              {time}  2040


                      Amendment Offered by Mr. Wu

  Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 23, line 4, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $60,500,000)''.
       Page 32, line 4, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $60,500,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support 
my commonsense amendment to save consumers significant costs in heating 
and cooling their homes and businesses. I am joined by my colleagues 
Don Young of Alaska, Charles Bass of New Hampshire, and Paul Tonko of 
New York in this bipartisan, commonsense amendment.
  Now, it's important because buildings use more energy than either 
transportation or industry. Fully 40 percent of our energy is consumed 
by building systems and in homes. My friend Paul Tonko cited the figure 
that 70 percent of electricity in America is used in buildings.
  At a time of both record energy costs and record unemployment, we 
need to protect Americans from crushing energy costs by improving the 
efficiency of existing and new buildings and homes. It's not just an 
issue for cold weather regions like the State of one of my cosponsors, 
Representative Young of Alaska. It's also an issue for hot climates 
like what we have here in Washington, DC. Even at this late hour, at

[[Page H4845]]

8:30 p.m., you can just about hear the air conditioning straining to 
keep it cool in this Chamber. The cost for air conditioning the U.S. 
Capitol is a fortune. It is also very costly at my 13-foot-wide 
townhouse near the Capitol, and, of course, heating cost is a big issue 
in my home in Oregon.
  The Building Technologies Program reduces the cost of operating homes 
and buildings by fostering public-private partnerships and developing 
technologies, techniques, and tools for making homes and businesses 
more affordable, productive, and efficient.
  According to the Department of Energy, the Building Technologies 
Program has resulted in fully $14 billion of direct savings to the 
consumer, savings that have been reinvested in local economies. 
Additionally, since its founding 20 years ago, the Building 
Technologies Program has saved the equivalent of over 12 billion 
gallons of gasoline.
  This amendment would return the Building Technologies Program to just 
its current fiscal year 2011 funding level. This amendment will cost 
nothing extra because it is fully offset by taking funds from the 
Office of the Secretary.
  According to the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee report, 
``a significant fraction of the funding directed in prior 
appropriations reports to specified energy efficiency and renewable 
energy activities has been diverted by department management to other 
purposes in recent years. In some cases, as much as 12 percent of the 
funding directed by the Congress for this activity has been diverted.''
  The offset for this amendment will simply return the funds to the 
Building Technologies Program as intended by this Congress. This, my 
colleagues, is low-hanging fruit, and we should pick it.
  I want to thank my colleagues Don Young, Charles Bass, and Paul Tonko 
for their joint sponsorship.
  I urge passage of this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the gentleman's 
amendment, but I give him credit for pursuing it. I have already noted 
that the bill reduces funds for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 
activities from that account because the government needs to live 
within its means and really because they don't need any additional 
funding.
  This amendment increases that account despite, as I said earlier, $9 
billion in unspent stimulus money. But perhaps the amendment 
illustrates how there is simply no room to increase funding for this 
provision, as the amendment makes an unrealistic cut to departmental 
administration to do so.
  It's not responsible to cut administration and oversight, the very 
thing that both the ranking and I would suggest the Department of 
Energy needs more than anything. They need people to review their 
programs, provide accountability, meet the benchmarks we've set and the 
timetables we've set and report back to our committee.
  So I oppose the amendment and urge others to do so as well.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon will 
be postponed.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Woodall

  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 23, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $200,000)''.
       Page 62, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $200,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Chairman, I realize $200,000 doesn't seem like a lot 
of money as we talk about millions and billions and then on to 
trillions. But, Mr. Chairman, when I got this press release from the 
Department of Energy dated May 24, 2011, it read this:
  The U.S. Department of Energy, together with the U.S. Department of 
Education, today announces the launch of a new energy education 
initiative, America's Home Energy Education Challenge, to educate 
America's youth about the benefits of energy efficiency.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, you know as I do, this committee has been asked to 
make tough, tough decisions about how to allocate money in this 
appropriations bill and has done an amazing job in doing that. And yet 
what we continue to see out of agencies from downtown is the creation 
of new programs.
  Now you know as I know that we could go through and eliminate, we 
could zero out this entire appropriations bill and we wouldn't be 
anywhere close to balance. We could zero out all the discretionary 
spending and wouldn't be close to balance. And I wonder if folks 
downtown are getting that same message. Now more than ever is not the 
right time to start a new program for which there is no demand and 
bring that to the American people.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, I grew up before there was a Department of Energy. 
And believe it or not--and this program is targeted at folks in grades 
3 to 8--when I was in elementary school, we had an energy efficiency 
program. There was a sign on the wall that said, Please turn out the 
lights when you leave. There was another room in my younger days that 
had a bird, and the light switch came right out through the beak that 
said, Tweet the beak when you leave.
  Lots of those things were going on in America's classrooms, Mr. 
Chairman. They don't need to originate from Washington, D.C. They don't 
need the U.S. Department of Education and the U.S. Department of Energy 
to get involved training children to turn out the lights.
  We've heard from speaker after speaker after speaker who is trying to 
move dollars around to make sure that we are targeting our few dollars 
that we have at those critical, cutting-edge technology programs, those 
critical research programs, those critical infrastructure programs, and 
yet here we have a brand new program, Mr. Chairman, going to teach 
children to turn out the lights when they leave.
  I think that is a wonderful goal, and I hope parents across America 
who are watching this tonight, Mr. Chairman, will take this as their 
push to go and begin that program at home if they haven't already. 
Knowing how tight dollars are in my community, I'm sure families are 
already doing that.
  But this is a serious issue that requires folks across this board to 
come together to make the kinds of spending decisions that we have to 
make to dig ourselves out of this hole. Creating new programs to do 
something that are State responsibilities, local responsibilities, 
family responsibilities, this is not the time nor the bill for it, Mr. 
Chairman. And I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, to cut 
this $200,000 and eliminate this new program and put these dollars in 
the spending reduction account before the new school year begins.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  2050

  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I rise to speak in support of the gentleman from 
Georgia's amendment. He is so articulate and so convincing, we are 
willing to accept his amendment.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I would like to thank the gentleman from Georgia for 
providing us with a copy of the amendment ahead of time and join with 
the chairman in accepting the amendment.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. One of the convincing arguments you made, you made 
reference to the Department of Energy newsletter, a new program where 
maybe personal responsibility should be perhaps ahead of what they may 
suggest.

[[Page H4846]]

  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment Offered by Mr. McClintock

  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 23, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $166,143,000)''.
       Page 62, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $166,143,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, this amendment saves $166 million by 
relieving taxpayers of having to subsidize yet another year of handouts 
to the solar industry.
  Solar power is not some fragile, new technology. Photovoltaic 
electricity generation was invented by Edmund Becquerel in 1839, more 
than 170 years ago. And in more than 170 years of continuing research 
and development and technological advancement, not to mention untold 
billions of taxpayer subsidies, we have not yet invented a more 
expensive way to generate electricity.
  Yet we're perfectly comfortable telling our constituents that we are 
taking another $166 million from their families this year to throw at 
this 19th-century technology for no particular reason other than it 
makes us feel good.
  Not only is this the most expensive way we have ever invented to 
generate electricity; it also adds nothing to our baseline power. Our 
electricity systems operate on an integrated grid, meaning we 
constantly have to match the power going onto the grid with the power 
coming off the grid. And since there's no way to predict when a cloud 
passing over a solar array will immediately drop the output to zero, we 
have to construct an equal amount of reliable conventional power to 
back it up at a moment's notice.
  In other words, for every kilowatt of solar power we add to the grid, 
we also have to add an additional kilowatt of backup power. If this 
technology was truly on the verge of a breakthrough, it would be the 
hottest thing in the stock market right now, and investors would be 
tripping over themselves to get a piece of the action. They are not.
  We have no right to take our constituents' money and put it into yet 
another losing proposition. We're told the solar industry is making 
great strides in the marketplace. Lots of new jobs. That's true, but it 
is making those strides not on its own merit, but solely because we are 
hiding its true cost from consumers through massive tax subsidies that 
in turn we are borrowing from the Chinese.
  It is true that if you hand over $166 million of taxpayer money to 
certain solar corporations, those corporations are going to do very 
well financially. But their government-funded windfall comes at the 
expense of not only the hardworking Americans who are the source of 
this largess; it comes at the expense of our ability to generate the 
most energy for the lowest price.
  Perhaps it is just human nature that the more we invest in our 
mistakes, the less willing we are to admit them. But with the mistakes 
of the last 30 years now contributing to the bankruptcy of our country 
and the impoverishment of our people, perhaps it is time to tell not 
only the solar industry but every part of the energy sector, get off 
the public dole, compete on your own merit, and restore to consumers 
the accurate and unadulterated price signals that they need to make 
rational decisions in the marketplace.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment for 
reasons I have stated on other very similar amendments relative to 
energy research into renewable accounts.
  I would point out there has been reference about the care that the 
subcommittee has taken as far as drafting this legislation. Stated in 
the committee report is language relative to solar, that the committee 
encourages the Department to include in its efforts disruptive solar 
energy utilization technologies, fabrication methods that yield ultra-
low-cost solar cells, technology for ultrahigh efficiency solar cells, 
and technologies designed to simulate the operation of solar cells and 
other methods to yield advance sciences.
  The committee also recommended no funding for solar demonstration 
zone projects, as the Department has adequate facilities at its 
existing laboratories. So they certainly recognized that they did not 
want money expended in that area.
  The committee also indicated in its report that it is aware of the 
significant cost and efficiency advantages that solar films can provide 
to thin film and crystalline silicon modules, and we encouraged the 
Department to expand the funding of solar film research and 
development.
  So, again, the moneys that are provided, which are very tight, are 
also very thoughtfully put forth with very directive language by the 
committee.
  For that reason, I do oppose the gentleman's amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. We clearly have to move away from fossil fuels. In 
order to do so, we need to understand the other opportunities that are 
available to us. Indeed, solar has been around for a long time. But 
also in the last decade, 15 years, there have been extraordinary 
increases in the efficiencies in the solar systems, and they continue 
to increase.
  This is not the time for us to back away from the future. It is time 
for us to move aggressively forward, providing the research, providing 
the incentives to move to a new source of energy.
  If you want to continue to pollute the atmosphere, then stay with 
coal. If you want to continue to be indebted to the petro dictators of 
the world, then stay with oil. But we need to move away from that. And 
this money in this particular part of the bill provides us with the 
opportunity to seize the next generation of power, and that is the sun. 
Yes, the sun has been around a long time, warming us and providing us 
with what we need to survive. We need to use it more effectively and 
efficiently, and that is what this money allows us to do. Removing the 
$154 million is exactly the wrong thing to do. I oppose the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I oppose this amendment, but agree with the 
gentleman's concern about the use of the taxpayers' dollars. In this 
account, which we have been debating for perhaps an hour and a half, I 
don't think any program has probably had a larger cut than the solar 
program, perhaps for the very reasons that the gentleman raises. Solar 
technologies have been around for a long time. We have a fairly viable 
public sector, but I still think we do need within the Department of 
Energy people in the Department of Energy who can put together and 
provide some degree of expertise and advice to a variety of different 
entrepreneurs.
  So I reluctantly oppose the amendment, but certainly know his heart 
is in the right place.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
will be postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

              Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability

       For Department of Energy expenses including the purchase, 
     construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment, 
     and other expenses necessary for electricity delivery and 
     energy reliability activities in

[[Page H4847]]

     carrying out the purposes of the Department of Energy 
     Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), including the 
     acquisition or condemnation of any real property or any 
     facility or for plant or facility acquisition, construction, 
     or expansion, $139,496,000, to remain available until 
     expended.

                             Nuclear Energy

       For Department of Energy expenses including the purchase, 
     construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment, 
     and other expenses necessary for nuclear energy activities in 
     carrying out the purposes of the Department of Energy 
     Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), including the 
     acquisition or condemnation of any real property or any 
     facility or for plant or facility acquisition, construction, 
     or expansion, and the purchase of not more than 10 buses, all 
     for replacement only, $733,633,000, to remain available until 
     expended.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Schiff

  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 24, line 6, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $10,000,000) (increased by $10,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.

                              {time}  2100

  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is very simple. Of the $733 
million appropriated in this bill for nuclear energy research at the 
Department of Energy, it separates out $10 million to spend on a 
cooperative effort with NASA to restart the production of plutonium-
238.
  Advancing the state of nuclear energy technology was the initial 
mission of the DOE, and it was hugely successful, developing 
technologies now used in power plants, submarines and deep space 
missions. This last focus is now one of the smallest: DOE spends about 
$40 million a year building plutonium-238 radioisotope thermal 
generators, RTGs, for NASA and for national security purposes. This 
program began in the fifties. RTGs flew on all of the Apollo missions 
and many times since. In deep space, RTGs are often the only possible 
source of power.
  Unfortunately, in the early nineties, the U.S. shut down plutonium-
238 production, and since then, the Department of Energy has been using 
stockpiled material and material purchased from Russia to build these 
devices. Recently, though, Russia refused to continue that 
relationship, and our supply of plutonium-238 is almost exhausted. 
There are no other viable ways to provide this power, so the U.S. must 
restart production to allow any deep space or national security uses to 
continue.
  This project has been requested in the last three budget requests, 
under the Bush and Obama administrations. Over the course of 5 years, 
the total cost of the project is estimated at $75-$90 million. By 
agreement between the agencies, the project would be equally funded by 
NASA and the DOE as NASA has the largest need for the power and the DOE 
has the expertise and would build and maintain the facility. The $10 
million requested this year in the NASA budget was included in the CJS 
billing making its way through the Appropriations Committee. This 50/50 
cost share is consistent with the decades-long history of the RTG 
program in which NASA has paid for each RTG produced for its purposes 
and the DOE has paid for the infrastructure required.
  In the context of the nuclear energy research budget, which, in fact, 
receives a modest increase in this bill, this is a very small project, 
but it would have an outsized influence on our ability to do the kind 
of space exploration that no one else in the world can. It may also 
provide an opportunity for national security agencies to pursue 
important projects that would otherwise not be available.
  I hope that every Member can support this amendment so that we can 
continue the long history of space exploration for which this Nation is 
known around the world.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
gentleman's amendment, but let me thank him for his historical 
perspective of the department and of its initial responsibility and for 
his own deep knowledge, which he shared with many of us in the House, 
of its necessity in terms of space exploration.
  The gentleman's amendment increases funding for the plutonium-238 
production restart project, as it's called. To do so, funding for other 
valuable nuclear energy activities would have to be cut, including the 
advanced reactor concept research, fuel cycle development, and 
promising avenues like small modular reactors licensing and research.
  The administration has proposed this new project for several years in 
order to increase domestic supplies of plutonium-238. The vast majority 
of this material, as Mr. Schiff has said, would be used by NASA for in-
space power supplies, and only a small fraction would be used by the 
Department of Energy. Unfortunately, after the committee repeatedly 
expressed concerns since fiscal year 2010, the administration once 
again proposed in the 2012 budget request for the Department of Energy 
to share a full half of the project's financial cost. The 
administration has neither altered its stance nor addressed or even 
acknowledged the committee's concerns about this disproportionate 
sharing.
  The funding plans in the budget request and the amendment simply 
don't make sense, particularly given the other critical priorities in 
this bill. As we have expressed for 2 years, the administration must 
develop a more sensible plan. Therefore, I oppose the amendment, and 
urge Members to do likewise.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HOLT. I would like to make a brief comment in support of the 
gentleman's amendment.
  As he said and as I would like to reiterate, there is a class of 
space exploration that cannot be carried out without these RTGs. Our 
domestic supply is unreliable at best, essentially nonexistent, and it 
takes a while to regenerate that.
  I strongly support the gentleman's move to restart that program so 
that we could have a reliable domestic program for deep space 
exploration that cannot be conducted in any way with other energy 
sources. I think it is a reasonable amendment and is not overstated, 
and I would urge its adoption.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.
  I certainly appreciate, again, the gentleman's seriousness in 
offering it. I appreciate what he wants to accomplish, but the history 
of this issue has been discussed by a number of speakers.
  The fact is there have been Presidents of both parties who have made 
this recommendation over the last 3 years, and there has been directive 
language by this committee under the direction of both political 
parties over the last 3 years. The point is there is a benefit to 
another agency in the government outside the Department of Energy 
picking up a reasonable cost, and there ought to be an agreement. Until 
that is done, I would, with all due respect, rise to oppose the 
gentleman's amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
will be postponed.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Garamendi

  Mr. GARAMENDI. I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 24, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $20,000,000)''.

[[Page H4848]]

       Page 24, line 18. after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $20,000,000)''.

  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman reserves a point of order.
  The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. This particular section provides $700 million-plus for 
nuclear power research, various kinds. The chairman spoke to this issue 
a few moments ago.
  The purpose of my amendment is to carve out of that $700 million-plus 
a sum of $20 million to restart America's program on recycling spent 
nuclear fuel. We currently call this spent nuclear fuel a ``waste'' 
when, in fact, it still possesses about 97 percent of the energy that 
was originally in the uranium and then processed once through the light 
water reactors. The purpose of the amendment is to restart.
  In the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, America undertook a program to close 
the nuclear fuel cycle. That was abandoned in 1994 after a successful 
effort to recycle and to use that energy that is found in the nuclear 
fuel. Unfortunately, now this spent nuclear fuel, which we call a 
``waste product,'' is sitting at every reactor in the United States and 
mostly around the world, creating a significant hazard. We only need to 
think about Fukushima's little swimming pool that went dry and of the 
meltdown that occurred at that point.
  We need to recycle and completely use, or as much as possible 
completely use, the energy in these spent nuclear fuel pools. If we do 
so, we can do it in a way that significantly reduces the hazards and 
that significantly reduces the longevity of the problem from some 
200,000 to some 300 years and create an enormous energy opportunity.
  This is a beginning. There is a long path ahead of us, and we have to 
start on this immediately. That is the purpose of this. Unfortunately, 
it is going to be ruled out of order. However, in the future, as we 
move forward, I would hope that the committee and this House and the 
Senate deem fit to put this kind of program back into action.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  2110

  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my point of 
order.
  The Acting CHAIR. The point of order is reserved.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I will insist on my point of order 
but would first make a few comments.
  The gentleman's amendment prescribes a path forward for the back end 
of the nuclear energy fuel cycle by directing the Department of Energy 
to develop a specific type of reprocessing plan and facility, the 
integral fast reactor.
  Let me say I appreciate our colleague from California's passion for 
moving forward our Nation's strategy for handling spent nuclear fuel, 
and I want to thank him for the many times he approached me on this 
issue. I and many of my colleagues share the gentleman's concerns, and 
I have repeatedly pushed the administration to move forward at least 
one piece of the solution, which is the Yucca Mountain repository. 
There is, however, ongoing debate about the future of the back end of 
our Nation's fuel cycle.
  There are many approaches, including open, closed and modified fuel 
cycles. Each of these approaches--some of which utilize reprocessing 
facilities--are far from straightforward and can be accomplished using 
a variety of competing technologies. While I appreciate my colleague's 
desire to move the Nation forward, we must carefully evaluate these 
highly technical issues to address the economic safety and 
nonproliferation impacts that accompany any fuel cycle option. The 
gentleman's amendment chooses one winning technology, and I believe it 
deserves more careful evaluation before moving forward.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, the amendment proposes to amend 
portions of the bill not yet read. The amendment may not be considered 
en bloc under clause 2(f) of rule XXI because of outlays in the bill.
  I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does any Member wish to speak on the point of 
order?
  Mr. GARAMENDI. I do wish to speak on the point of order.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. I think the point of order is out of order. In fact, 
the issue before us is of utmost importance to this Nation--and indeed 
to the world--as more and more light water reactors are built.
  The problem of spent fuel continues to mount and creates hazards. The 
United States did, in fact, figure out how to close the nuclear gap.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman needs to speak to the point of order.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. I'm working towards that.
  The Acting CHAIR. Well, the gentleman needs to speak to the point of 
order.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. The point of order that I would have wished to speak 
to, I will yield back my time and take up the subject later.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair is prepared to rule.
  To be considered en bloc pursuant to clause 2(f) of rule XXI, an 
amendment must not propose to increase the levels of budget authority 
or outlays in the bill.
  Because the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
proposes a net increase in the level of outlays in the bill, as argued 
by the chairman of the Subcommittee on Appropriations, it may not avail 
itself of clause 2(f) to address portions of the bill not yet read.
  The point of order is sustained. The amendment is not in order.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                 Fossil Energy Research and Development

       For necessary expenses in carrying out fossil energy 
     research and development activities, under the authority of 
     the Department of Energy Organization Act (Public Law 95-91), 
     including the acquisition of interest, including defeasible 
     and equitable interests in any real property or any facility 
     or for plant or facility acquisition or expansion, and for 
     conducting inquiries, technological investigations and 
     research concerning the extraction, processing, use, and 
     disposal of mineral substances without objectionable social 
     and environmental costs (30 U.S.C. 3, 1602, and 1603), 
     $476,993,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That for all programs funded under Fossil Energy 
     appropriations in this Act or any other Act, the Secretary 
     may vest fee title or other property interests acquired under 
     projects in any entity, including the United States.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Garamendi

  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 24, line 18, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $450,000,000)''.
       Page 28, line 23, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $450,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. This amendment would transfer $450 million from the 
Fossil Fuel Research Account to ARPA-E. The reason for the amendment is 
that we have to move off the 19th-century fuel, that is, coal and oil, 
and move to future energy sources, one of which I talked about a few 
moments ago, that is, the nuclear. The other energy sources are out 
there. We discussed on this floor here over the last hour the issue of 
solar. There are fuels, advanced biofuels. There are also wind, solar, 
wave, geothermal. All of these are being advanced at this time by the 
ARPA-E program within the Department of Energy. That's where the future 
is.
  Now, we can make a choice here about staying with the past and trying 
to figure out how to create clean coal, which is probably the oxymoron 
of the century, or we can simply shift our resources to look at other 
energy sources, and that's what we have to do. The purpose of this 
amendment is to do that, to shift $450 million into ARPA-E so that we 
can look for the energy systems of the future, providing the support 
that they need both in the research and in the early development of 
those resources.

[[Page H4849]]

  There has been much success in this area. There have been numerous 
research programs that have been done not only at the Department of 
Energy facilities, but at universities around this country that have 
taken advantage of the ARPA-E program. It is modeled after the very 
successful and very long-lasting Department of Defense ARPA program, 
and it works. We've actually seen major scientific breakthroughs that 
have occurred as a result of the funding from the ARPA-E program.
  Modest as it was, if this amendment were to be adopted, it would be a 
very big program, one that has the potential of advancing this Nation's 
future and freeing us--in the case of oil--from the petro dictators of 
the world and also, in the case of coal, from the extraordinary 
problems that coal brings to the environment and to communities 
throughout this Nation. I understand the coal industry and their desire 
to continue to dig for coal, but we know that at some point we're going 
to have to move away into the future, and that is what this amendment 
would attempt to accomplish.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. With all respect, I do rise in opposition to the 
gentleman's amendment. I appreciate his comments about ARPA-E. I 
appreciate the purpose behind its creation. And I will certainly 
acknowledge that it would appear at ARPA-E there is a new culture, if 
you would, at that element of the Department of Energy to move projects 
along and to have a conclusion to research.
  As I indicated in my opening remarks in general debate on this bill, 
I wish the Department of Energy had brought the same vigor and that 
same commitment that they had to ARPA-E to existing programs at the 
Department of Energy because my concern is that at some point in time 
we have too many programs that are going to solve the problem and we're 
tripping over each other.
  At this point, we have 46 Energy Frontier Research Centers, and there 
is a request to add three to eight more. We have a new administration, 
and it is not unique to the Obama administration that at the Department 
of Energy we need, as I would characterize it, a new silver ball to 
chase around. We need new hubs so that people can talk to each other 
about critical research. At this point in time, there are three hubs in 
place, as I understand, for about 18 months. There are two more called 
for in this bill, totaling five.
  We need a bioenergy research center. There are now three in the 
United States: one in Berkeley, California; one in Madison, Wisconsin; 
and one in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. We also need defined research being 
done at the Joint Genome Institute that was established in 1997 under 
President Clinton.
  I, at this point in time, would like to make sure that ARPA-E works 
over a longer term, as advertised, and that as advertised the 
Department takes that culture that is being developed at ARPA-E and to 
infuse it into these other programs and to show the Congress of the 
United States there is communication between these numerous programs 
before we provide any additional monies over and above those called for 
in the bill.
  So again, very respectfully, I would oppose the gentleman's 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  2120

  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I rise to oppose the amendment but also to 
associate myself with the ranking member's comments on ARPA-E, which 
I'm supportive of. Of course our colleague's amendment would add 
funding to ARPA-E, which receives some $100 million in our bill; but 
the way he would do it would be virtually to eliminate funding for the 
Fossil Energy Research and Development program, I think causing 
excessive job losses. And I think the program makes major 
contributions.
  Of course we can't forget that fossil fuels, coal, and natural gas 
generate about 70 percent of our Nation's electricity. ARPA-E may 
someday generate a much greater percentage than perhaps it potentially 
does today, but we're a long way from there. So I oppose the 
gentleman's amendment and certainly the source, using the Fossil Fuels 
account for this additional money, that he suggests.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
will be postponed.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now 
rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Broun of Georgia) having assumed the chair, Mr. Conaway, Acting Chair 
of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 
2354) making appropriations for energy and water development and 
related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2012, and for 
other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________